Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2721
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:36 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:27 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:51 pm But poverty in the Developing World, and in the world as a whole, is falling rapidly. It's one of the surprising stories of our century so far. We did not expect it, and did not see it coming...but it's happening, and at a very quick rate. There's still a long way to go, but signs are hopeful. And the places in which things are looking up fastest are the places in which individual capitalist initiative is being maximized, through things like microfinance, not where government interventions are involved.
That's a little bit of a one-sided telling. Most microfinance schemes are state or NGO backed,
Actually, that's largely untrue.

Microfinance is different...corporate and private contributions got it started, and while some governments are involved now, they only followed the private-sector model. They didn't invent it, they didn't make it work, and they don't really sustain it.
The example they are following is Grameen in Bangladesh, which was funded by NGOs and the state central bank. It is by far the most succesful such organisation and won a Nobel prize because it was a pioneer.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:36 pm So the "backing" afforded by government is very late and comparatively minimal.
It was up front, very early, and continues to be necessary given that Grameen is the only major success story, and that only works because state backing in the bond market gives it low borrowing costs to this day.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:36 pm
All the most successful regions you reference have developed some network of free clinics supported by either state or NGOs with neonatal care, nutrition and vaccination programs, all of which has been utterly necessary to their success.

Here's the problem: when you say "NGO," people don't know what you mean. It means "Non-Governmental Organization," and it's a catch-all term for charitable efforts sponsored mostly by private enterprise, and overwhelmingly staffed by religious people, and especially by Christians.
It never takes you long to laim everything for Christ does it? I grant that Christians do their bit, but so do others. So can you just leave an opportuntiy to ruin everyting with your insane drive to proselytize for once please? People who don't know what NGOs are were already very much out of their depth before getting this far.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:36 pm
The truth is that efficient markets everywhere depend on state support to function,
That's not true, actually.

Microenterprise is a great example of something that only needs government to leave it alone in order for it to work. I've seen it work in a slum of 4 million people with no running water, no government services at all, and roving gangs of violent thugs. So long as there is any small free market, microenterprise works: it harnesses the ingenuity of the local poor and frees them to use their creativity to raise themselves. Thus it imparts to them tremendous dignity and opportunity.

I know. I've seen it. I've been there.
Then you know that poverty would reduce even more rapidly if a competent state collected garbage once in a while (directly or through a contract). And it would be nice in a non corrupt police force would arrest some of those robbers. And if all the kids get a tetanus shot that would be good. And if there is electricity so the kids can do some homework at night for a decent school in the day, that assists with poverty reduction too. And sewage, and roads... all stuff that isn't really something microfinance can deal with, but the state can.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2794
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:02 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:03 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:50 am Actual poverty has only risen in a handful of war zones and failed states, everywhere else it has fallen.
LOL
Yes, you mean war zones and failed states like Greece, Spain, Italy, the UK, and the USA?
Don't do stupid tricks like that please. You deliberately stripped a single sentence from its context in order to give yourself an easier target and I can't repect that sort of behaviour.
Haha. I hit a nerve there!

What you threw away to facilitate that dishonest stunt was...
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:50 am Relative poverty has risen wherever you care to collect the numbers that give you the measure of poverty you want. Neoliberals propose many remedies for this latter issue, because we do care and we want to make the world better just like you do.
There is absolutely no sense in which either of Greece or Italy could ever have been referred to as "neoliberal", that's ridiculous.
FFS!
Have you never heard of the fucking EU?
Get your self a book or something!

To an extent Britain and America can though. Neverthelss neither of those countries has followed a terribly neoliberal path in recent years, and once again I think you are not bothering to wonder what that might entail, you are simply projecting some negative feelings you have onto a word that doesn't mean much to you.

There has been increasing poverty in some sections of most societies subject to particular measures, that much is true by definition. Neoliberals propose a specific set of measures to alleviate those problems. You don't care about any of that, you like to shout and point a lot, that's your entire thing.
You are living in a dream world.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2794
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:22 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:14 pm I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.
I'm wondering where and how you detect this "increase." It's certainly not in the net standard of living. And the average person is doing better than at almost any time in history. So what metric do you prefer to use?
Perhaps you should investigate the concept of inequality?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10807
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:01 pm It depends what poverty number you want to report.
Yeah, that's the problem. Some things that are "poor" by modern standards were "luxurious" by standards a century ago, or in the Developing World today.
Poverty is about more than starvation, Adam Smith knew that centries ago
Well, that's true: in the Developing World, we might say that "poverty is a lack of options." That's one good way to put it.

But with all deference to Adam Smith, it's not really the responsibility of government to provide us with luxuries, whether our society has them or not. It may be that my neighbour's three swimming pools make me feel bad, because I've only got one; but that doesn't mean anybody owes me to buy me a swimming pool.

Basic survival, that's one thing. But luxuries, they're quite another. We ought to do that ourselves. If the government has a role, it may be the government's job to provide subsistence for people who are genuinely incapable of getting it for themselves -- but no more. Poverty cannot be defined by how jealous I am of my neighbour's goods, nor by whether or not I get what the "average" person in my society has. And people who refuse to work...well, nobody owes them a thing.

It's certainly not anybody's job to provide for me to the point at which I "feel good."
Skepdick
Posts: 6806
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Skepdick »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:12 pm Perhaps you should investigate the concept of inequality?
The concept of inequality is trivially understood by using the concept of variance in statistics.
Low variance means low inequality.
High variance means high inequality.

What you are still refusing to do is to commit yourself to some metric, and some normative value that you call 'poverty'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10807
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:12 pm Perhaps you should investigate the concept of inequality?
Ha. "Equality" is not a moral concept. It's not even a clear concept.

There is no guarantee written into the nature of the universe that everybody must have "equal" anything. In fact, there's a 100% guarantee they never will, no matter what they arrange. So "inequality" is not, of itself, a problem. It's just a fact. We're born in different sexes, locations, physiologies, intelligences, levels of pulchritude, opportunities, cultures, heights and weights, health levels, athletic abilities, conditions of wealth, strength of eyesight and hearing, genetics...and on, and on, and on. Equality is nowhere evident in any of this.

Unjust inequality, well, that would be different. But that needs discussion of what "justice" really is, in a given case.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10807
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:26 pm The example they are following is Grameen in Bangladesh, which was funded by NGOs and the state central bank. It is by far the most succesful such organisation and won a Nobel prize because it was a pioneer.
The NGOs got it going. The central bank was late to the party. It's the same with other microfinance organizations, too.
Grameen is the only major success story,
Oh, no...absolutely not. And when it started, it did not even use the bond market or the banks. That's a late and recent innovation, a product of the fact that microfinance organizations have become so successful that they have begun to provide high-level services that a mere microfinance-lending organization can't provide. So now they're using higher-level capitalism to multiply the services they offer.

But the government did none of that. As I say, it was very late into the game. All credit to it for being in NOW, but it's not the reason such organizations exist.
Here's the problem: when you say "NGO," people don't know what you mean. It means "Non-Governmental Organization," and it's a catch-all term for charitable efforts sponsored mostly by private enterprise, and overwhelmingly staffed by religious people, and especially by Christians.
It never takes you long to laim everything for Christ does it?
Nope. And especially when credit is due.
I grant that Christians do their bit, but so do others.
Yes, some. But both in inception and in continuing success, NGOs rely heavily on Christians. Have you noticed there aren't a comparable number of NGOs sponsored by particular other ideologies?
People who don't know what NGOs are were already very much out of their depth before getting this far.
You're underestimating folks.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:36 pm I know. I've seen it. I've been there.
Then you know that poverty would reduce even more rapidly if a competent state collected garbage once in a while (directly or through a contract).
Actually, what I've observed is that governments do almost nothing particularly well, and free enterprise is almost always cheaper and more effective. Not in everything, but in most things.
And it would be nice in a non corrupt police force would arrest some of those robbers.
Now, THERE'S something they could do! I agree.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 2794
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:26 pm
Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:12 pm Perhaps you should investigate the concept of inequality?
Ha. "Equality" is not a moral concept. It's not even a clear concept.

There is no guarantee written into the nature of the universe that everybody must have "equal" anything. In fact, there's a 100% guarantee they
FFS.
Get your head out of your arse.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2721
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:21 pm
Poverty is about more than starvation, Adam Smith knew that centries ago
Well, that's true: in the Developing World, we might say that "poverty is a lack of options." That's one good way to put it.

But with all deference to Adam Smith, it's not really the responsibility of government to provide us with luxuries, whether our society has them or not. It may be that my neighbour's three swimming pools make me feel bad, because I've only got one; but that doesn't mean anybody owes me to buy me a swimming pool.
Okay. Well let's return to something you skipped and see if that gives us something a little more sophisticated to work with.

I mentioned that some would consider it a case of poverty if a parent works two jobs and never gets to see their kids because of it. You seem like a family values sort of guy, I would have though you were totally into family time for kids, it's good for them. Is it not a form of poverty to be unable to afford time to raise your own children in the way that you feel they need because you are working multiple jobs just to house feed and clothe them?

This is a form of poverty to my view, and I see no reason why we as a society should not spend some resource to alleviate it.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2721
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:08 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:02 pm There is absolutely no sense in which either of Greece or Italy could ever have been referred to as "neoliberal", that's ridiculous.
FFS!
Have you never heard of the fucking EU?
Get your self a book or something!
The EU spends half its budget on badly designed farm subsidies, and most of the rest on nationalist carve outs. Those are not neoliberal objectives, not even close.

The Euro is a dreadful imitation of a currency and in its present form cannot be expected to survive the next bad monetary cycle which probably isn't too distant. If the EU was a neoliberal organisation they would have dealt with this by either never creating it, or by creating it properly as an optimal currency area using similar tools to those which make the UK pound work, which is mostly down to a thing called the Barnett Formula. The US dollar works on a similar basis and thus Henry's home state receives massive subsidies from New York to compensate for their poverty.

If the EU were remotely neoliberal, Germany would send cash to Greece and would have done so all along to mitigate the effects of having a monetary policy set to maintain demand in the north of Europe. In short, had they listened to my team, Greece would have been fine other than some entirely self inflicted stuff. Italy is a little different, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a neoliberal from any nation would have actually wanted Italy in that thing.

You can give me another round of your huffing and puffing if you like, but this shit is very basic economics, and neoliberalism is definitely not about ignoring that stuff.

The good bits of the EU are the common market, common movement and open borders things. None of those did anything bad to Greece or to Britain.
uwot
Posts: 5068
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by uwot »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:26 pmThere is no guarantee written into the nature of the universe that everybody must have "equal" anything. In fact, there's a 100% guarantee they never will, no matter what they arrange.
Yah. That's because your god couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 10807
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by Immanuel Can »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:33 pm I mentioned that some would consider it a case of poverty if a parent works two jobs and never gets to see their kids because of it. You seem like a family values sort of guy, I would have though you were totally into family time for kids, it's good for them. Is it not a form of poverty to be unable to afford time to raise your own children in the way that you feel they need because you are working multiple jobs just to house feed and clothe them?
"...unable to afford time to raise your own children in the way you feel that they need...?

That's a loaded line, for sure. In what way "unable"? Why can't you "afford time"? Why do you have children you couldn't "afford"? What does it matter how you "feel"? What do they really "need"? Depending on the answers to these questions, your question could mean anything from the frivolous to the very serious. So it's very hard to answer that question simply.

Can you reword? Or could you give an example instead?

And is that "poverty"? Not on a Developing World level. "Poverty" means literal starvation to them. It doesn't mean two jobs or three...it means none. It means your daughter is prostituting, and your son is sold into effective slavery. It means you have no medical care at all. And contraception? Not easy. Much of the world lives on the equivalent of less that $1 per day. Nobody in North America knows deprivation like that, save perhaps the native reservations in the remote north.
Dachshund
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: Re:

Post by Dachshund »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:16 am gaffo,

"Heinlein"

In my top ten.

####

Mannie,

"I LOVE that short story."

Me too. Very illustrative of what strivin' for 'equality' is really about.

Water will find its own level: leave it be.


Henry,




Did you watch the 2020 Democrat presidential candidate debates that took place recently?



I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Here were the best 20 Democrats the party could come up with to challenge Trump and both debates were bizarre clown shows.



All of the candidates were endorsing hard-core SOCIALIST economic programs and policies. I mean "socialist" in the sense Marx used the term. I know that you would use the term "communist" in place of "socialist, but strictly speaking the terms communist/communism were used by Marx to refer to the that final "utopian" society that he prophesied would coincide with the end of history according to his political/economic theory.Technically speaking , there never was a Marxist communist state established anywhere in the world. Although in the West "communism" was, nevertheless, the word everyone used to describe the system of government in the USSR (the Soviet Union) during the Cold War, the Russians themselves never used the term. The Soviet Union was a socialist state, yes, but it never managed to evolve what Marx would have called a true communist society.




The Democrat 2020 presidential candidates cloak themselves with a range deceptive euphemisms like: Democratic Socialist (Bernie Sanders); Liberal/Liberalism (though very different from the Classic Liberalism of John Locke or Adam Smith) or Progressives/Progressivism. MAKE NO MISTAKE, all of these people are, in fact, (Marxist) Socialists




Anyway, getting back to the two recently broadcast Democrat 2020 presidential candidate debates....Some of the bat-shit crazy stuff I was hearing really shocked me. I said to myself as I was watching these debates, is THIS really happening in AMERICA. For instance all 20 of the candidates were fully in favour of not just turning a "blind eye" to illegal immigrants sneaking into the US, but of giving them free government funded healthcare once they arrive ??!! They also supported a a free healthcare ("Medicare for ALL") system (all private heath care is to be eliminated as a matter of urgency said Elizabeth Warren), "free" college, "free" childcare, massive forgiveness of student loans, doubling the federal minimum wage, tearing down the existing barrier on the US-Mexican border, eliminating the Electoral college and so on. At one point in the second debate Beto O'Rourke and Corey Booker began answering questions the moderators had put to them in SPANISH, as an expression of solidarity with America's large and (growing by the day) Hispanic community. Beto O'Rourke, by the way , has actually been campaigning for the 2020 election in Mexico. (I'll leave you draw your own conclusions).




Three of these 2020 Democrat presidential candidates (namely:Kirsten Gillibrand; Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders) have recently promised they will abolish ICE if elected (the Immigration and Customs Federal law enforcement agency) , i.e; the agency that arrests sex traffickers, paedophiles, terrorists, murderers, illegal immigrants, international drug and arms traffickers (many of whom are pouring into the US illegally from Mexico).




Even more disturbing, the following Democrat candidates: Cory Booker; Peter Buttigeig; Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have publicly backed. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's INSANE "Green New Deal". The "Green New Deal" is raft of absurd environmental policies that would cost 93 trillion dollars to implement and destroy America as a Constitutional Republic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you're not already familiar with her, is a- 29- year old, ex-bartender, who is a self-described socialist as says she admires Cuba and Venezuela . Crazy as it seems she has somehow managed to take charge of the Democrats' Liberal agenda - "I'm the boss " - she boasts. This woman is SUCH a conspicuously, brainless retard, I still cannot get my head around the amount of influence she has succeeded in garnering in the Democrat Party.




Oh yeah, before I forget, here's another shocker for your delectation...In the second Democrat 2020 presidential candidate, Julian Castro, at one point emphatically demanded "reproductive justice"; there was a large cheer from the rent-a-mob, socialist studio audience when he announced this. Castro then explained that the rather ambiguous term, "reproductive justice", meant allowing a transgender female to have an abortion. (??!!) I thought, that's odd, I didn't know that men had menstrual periods and could get pregnant ? What an ignorant fool I must be ! Seriously, what kind of a moron would say something like that in a high-profile, political debate on national television? The mind boggles.




Then there was Democrat presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson. Marianne has no experience at in politics, full stop. She is a "New Age" spiritual guru, i.e; a total flake who writes self-help books about how to utilise your auras and vital psychic energy and other mystical transcendental, crystal-rubbing bullshit to cure your latest existential neurosis. But she's appeared on Oprah three times, so I guess the Democrats figure she might have a good shot at beating Trump in 2020 and becoming the first female President of the USA even though she's white and can't speak Spanish(??!!). Here's the concluding remark she gave at the end of the second 2020 debate...




"Mr President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me, please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes, and only love can cast that out. So, I, Sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes, I will meet you on that field. And, Sir, love will win !" Yep, it's just like "The Beatles" said: "All you need is love." Actually, I think America should dispatch her to Iran as soon as possible on a special diplomatic mission to lay some "good lovin'" on "Supreme Leader", Ali Khamenei to try and persuade him to stop being such an aggressive, uranium-enriching, Muslim **** :x :x . I think it's definitely worth a try (of course she'd have to be very careful and make it crystal clear to the the Supreme Leader,- for her own safely-, that she WILL NOT do anal). Allah u Akbar !!! :shock: :shock:




The Democrats are also keen on rolling out a multi trillion dollar plan to provide financial reparation for the African -Americans who are descents of slavery. As well as this Kamala Harris is advocating a 100 billion dollar program which will disburse money to African-Americans to assist them in buying their own homes. I think privileging one race/ethnic group in this manner is called RACISM, if I not mistaken.




Anyway Henry, to cut a long story short, your Democrat Party has gone right off the rails and transformed itself into a pack of frothing-at-the-mouth, lunatic socialists (Marxists). I've never seen anything like this happen in American politics in my lifetime. I mean, WTF is going on your country, dude ???!!!



I mean, if the Democrats continue to advocate socialist policies, programs and plans, that's a good thing, because they are simply commtting political suicide with respect to the 2020 election. Trump must have thought all his birthdays had come at once when he tuned in to watch the Democrat's two recent presidential candidate debates. What worries me is the future. As I said before on this and related issues, "demographics is destiny." When white Europeans become a minority group in the US in 2042, what will happen is anyone's guess. It is possible a second American Civil War will erupt around this time, this time it will RED (Republican/white European) vs BLUE (Democrat/ non-white immigrants) not Yankee vs Rebel as it was in 1861-1865. Or, it is possible that the Democrats could succeed in forming a socialist government; it that did happen it would result in the rapid destruction of American as you know it now, that is, America the reasonably civilised, Constitutional Republic. The US would be doomed, and it would rapidly go the same way that EVERY other socialist state has gone in history; it would become a miserable, impoverished, chaotic hell hole ( or, as Trump would say, "Shit - Hole").






Regards




Dachshund
Last edited by Dachshund on Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 2721
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:08 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:33 pm I mentioned that some would consider it a case of poverty if a parent works two jobs and never gets to see their kids because of it. You seem like a family values sort of guy, I would have though you were totally into family time for kids, it's good for them. Is it not a form of poverty to be unable to afford time to raise your own children in the way that you feel they need because you are working multiple jobs just to house feed and clothe them?
"...unable to afford time to raise your own children in the way you feel that they need...?

That's a loaded line, for sure. In what way "unable"? Why can't you "afford time"? Why do you have children you couldn't "afford"? What does it matter how you "feel"? What do they really "need"? Depending on the answers to these questions, your question could mean anything from the frivolous to the very serious. So it's very hard to answer that question simply.

Can you reword? Or could you give an example instead?
Bit if a tactical lack of imagination going on there tbh. It's not like parents with two jobs and no time is all that rare is it?

Let's assume a single mother, let he be a nurse for this example, with, hmm, just one kid, school age. She has to pay rent, her husband can be a dead soldier or drunk who ran away, it doesn't matter. She has car payments to make so that she can afford to drive to her job and the kid probably ought to wear clothes and stuff. So she makes ends meet by ... bar-tending shall we say? So she can afford not to sell her child to sex abusers, but she's working two jobs.

So, for most of us, not having to sell or eat her own child to survive doesn't really count as not poor. She isn't able to be there for her child in the evenings, which is something she would like to be able to do. Time with her family has an economic utility that she is unable to afford. So what determines whether this is poverty or not is whether you believe that parents who cannot afford to spend quality time with their children are missing out, and more importantly whether this lac of affordability places the child into a state of poverty too.
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:08 pm And is that "poverty"? Not on a Developing World level. "Poverty" means literal starvation to them. It doesn't mean two jobs or three...it means none. It means your daughter is prostituting, and your son is sold into effective slavery. It means you have no medical care at all. And contraception? Not easy. Much of the world lives on the equivalent of less that $1 per day. Nobody in North America knows deprivation like that, save perhaps the native reservations in the remote north.
So what happened to this....?
Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:21 pm Well, that's true: in the Developing World, we might say that "poverty is a lack of options." That's one good way to put it.
Now poverty is selling your children as slaves? You really buried the lead calling child prostitution 'lack of options' didn't you? Next time I'm a restaurant with a sparse menu I'd better be very careful if I complain about 'lack of options' there.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 9572
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Re:

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Dachshund wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 8:20 pm
henry quirk wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:16 am gaffo,

"Heinlein"

In my top ten.

####

Mannie,

"I LOVE that short story."

Me too. Very illustrative of what strivin' for 'equality' is really about.

Water will find its own level: leave it be.


Henry,




Did you watch the 2020 Democrat presidential candidate debates that took place recently?



I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Here were the best 20 Democrats the party could come up with to challenge Trump and both debates were bizarre clown shows.



All of the candidates were endorsing hard-core SOCIALIST economic programs and policies. I mean "socialist" in the sense Marx used the term. I know that you would use the term "communist" in place of "socialist, but strictly speaking the terms communist/communism were used by Marx to refer to the that final "utopian" society that he prophesied would coincide with the end of history according to his political/economic theory.Technically speaking , there never was a Marxist communist state established anywhere in the world. Although in the West "communism" was, nevertheless, the word everyone used to describe the system of government in the USSR (the Soviet Union) during the Cold War, the Russians themselves never used the term. The Soviet Union was a socialist state, yes, but it never managed to evolve what Marx would have called a true communist society.




The Democrat 2020 presidential candidates cloak themselves with a range deceptive euphemisms like: Democratic Socialist (Bernie Sanders); Liberal/Liberalism (though very different from the Classic Liberalism of John Locke or Adam Smith) or Progressives/Progressivism. MAKE NO MISTAKE, all of these people are, in fact, (Marxist) Socialists




Anyway, getting back to the two recently broadcast Democrat 2020 presidential candidate debates....Some of the bat-shit crazy stuff I was hearing really shocked me. I said to myself as I was watching these debates, is THIS really happening in AMERICA. For instance all 20 of the candidates were fully in favour of not just turning a "blind eye" to illegal immigrants sneaking into the US, but of giving them free government funded healthcare once they arrive ??!! They also supported a a free healthcare ("Medicare for ALL") system (all private heath care is to be eliminated as a matter of urgency said Elizabeth Warren), "free" college, "free" childcare, massive forgiveness of student loans, doubling the federal minimum wage, tearing down the existing barrier on the US-Mexican border, eliminating the Electoral college and so on. At one point in the second debate Beto O'Rourke and Corey Booker began answering questions the moderators had put to them in SPANISH, as an expression of solidarity with America's large and (growing by the day) Hispanic community. Beto O'Rourke, by the way , has actually been campaigning for the 2020 election in Mexico. (I'll leave you draw your own conclusions).




Three of these 2020 Democrat presidential candidates (namely:Kirsten Gillibrand; Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders) have recently promised they will abolish ICE if elected (the Immigration and Customs Federal law enforcement agency) , i.e; the agency that arrests sex traffickers, paedophiles, terrorists, murderers, illegal immigrants, international drug and arms traffickers (many of whom are pouring into the US illegally from Mexico).




Even more disturbing, the following Democrat candidates: Cory Booker; Peter Buttigeig; Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have publicly backed. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's INSANE "Green New Deal". The "Green New Deal" is raft of absurd environmental policies that would cost 93 trillion dollars to implement and destroy America as a Constitutional Republic. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, if you're not already familiar with her, is a- 29- year old, ex-bartender, who is a self-described socialist as says she admires Cuba and Venezuela . Crazy as it seems she has somehow managed to take charge of the Democrats' Liberal agenda - "I'm the boss " - she boasts. This woman is SUCH a conspicuously, brainless retard, I still cannot get my head around the amount of influence she has succeeded in garnering in the Democrat Party.




Oh yeah, before I forget, here's another shocker for your delectation...In the second Democrat 2020 presidential candidate, Julian Castro, at one point emphatically demanded "reproductive justice"; there was a large cheer from the rent-a-mob, socialist studio audience when he announced this. Castro then explained that the rather ambiguous term, "reproductive justice", meant allowing a transgender female to have an abortion. (??!!) I thought, that's odd, I didn't know that men had menstrual periods and could get pregnant ? What an ignorant fool I must be ! Seriously, what kind of a moron would say something like that in a high-profile, political debate on national television? The mind boggles.




Then there was Democrat presidential candidate, Marianne Williamson. Marianne has no experience at in politics, full stop. She is a "New Age" spiritual guru, i.e; a total flake who writes self-help books about how to utilise your auras and vital psychic energy and other mystical transcendental, crystal-rubbing bullshit to cure your latest existential neurosis. But she's appeared on Oprah three times, so I guess the Democrats figure she might have a good shot at beating Trump in 2020 and becoming the first female President of the USA even though she's white and can't speak Spanish(??!!). Here's the concluding remark she gave at the end of the second 2020 debate...




"Mr President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me, please. You have harnessed fear for political purposes, and only love can cast that out. So, I, Sir, I have a feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness love for political purposes, I will meet you on that field. And, Sir, love will win !" Yep, it's just like "The Beatles" said: "All you need is love." Actually, I think America should dispatch her to Iran as soon as possible on a special diplomatic mission to lay some "good lovin'" on "Supreme Leader", Ali Khamenei to try and persuade him to stop being such an aggressive, uranium-enriching, Muslim **** :x :x . I think it's definitely worth a try (of course she'd have to be very careful and make it crystal clear to the the Supreme Leader,- for her own safely-, that she WILL NOT do anal). Allah u Akbar !!! :shock: :shock:




The Democrats are also keen on rolling out a multi trillion dollar plan to provide financial reparation for the African -Americans who are descents of slavery. As well as this Kamala Harris is advocating a 100 billion dollar program which will disburse money to African-Americans to assist them in buying their own homes. I think privileging one race/ethnic group in this manner is called RACISM, if I not mistaken.




Anyway Henry, to cut a long story short, your Democrat Party has gone right off the rails and transformed itself into a pack of frothing-at-the-mouth, lunatic socialists (Marxists). I've never seen anything like this happen in American politics in my lifetime. I mean, WTF is going on your country, dude ???!!!



I mean, if the Democrats continue to advocate socialist policies, programs and plans, that's a good thing, because they are simply commtting political suicide with respect to the 2020 election. Trump must have thought all his birthdays had come at once when he tuned in to watch the Democrat's two recent presidential candidate debates. What worries me is the future. As I said before on this and related issues, "demographics is destiny." When white Europeans become a minority group in the US in 2042, what will happen is anyone's guess. It is possible a second American Civil War will erupt around this time, this time it will RED (Republican/white European) vs BLUE (Democrat/ non-white immigrants) not Yankee vs Rebel as it was in 1861-1865. Or, it is possible that the Democrats could succeed in forming a socialist government; it that did happen it would result in the rapid destruction of American as you know it now, that is, America the reasonably civilised, Constitutional Republic. The US would be doomed, and it would rapidly go the same way that EVERY other socialist state has gone in history; it would become a miserable, impoverished, chaotic hell hole ( or, as Trump would say, "Shit - Hole").






Regards




Dachshund
You two are such morons. It's actually Trump who has the most 'socialist' policies.
Post Reply